Re: MD myths and symbols

Date: Wed Aug 13 2003 - 08:36:16 BST

  • Next message: Lars Quisling: "MD Pirsig, Falck, and Wolfram"

    Hi Scott.

    On 10 Aug. you wrote:

    Me previously:
    > > Scott makes the point that intellect did not suddenly emerge around
    > > 500 BC ...etc. The suddenness can be discussed, I agree with Scott
    > > about Jaynes' "bicameral" transformation as a forerunner for the
    > > S/O, this took place around Homer's time and is still "ancient
    > > Greece". What I find strange with Scott's presentation is the notion
    > > that there was an intellect that "moved from appearing...etc". Is it
    > > the thinking ghost again that "moved" from Society into Intellect
    > > ...after having moved from Biology?

    > Here is where you need Barfield rather than Jaynes (who was a
    > materialist). Yes there was, is now, and ever will be a thinking ghost
    > (think the German Geist, translatable into English as either mind or
    > spirit).

    Re. Barfield, is idealism any help if the goal is to understand the
    MOQ? Not IMO, idealism is the toughest obstacle (next to mysticism
    but that's another discussion). Phaedrus of ZMM faced the two horns
    of materialism and idealism and found the first one relatively easy to
    counter, while the second was a tougher case. Still, he avoided that
    one too through the Quality solution, therefore I am a little dismayed
    over these idealist thrusts ...particularly by Pirsig!!

    > Pre-500BC humanity perceived this ghost in nature and
    > society. We perceive it in, or as, our intellect.

    Still, you have lucid moments Scott ;-) as in the above and below from
    your exchange with Paul:

    > All true. But also all S/O. Yes, Intelligence (see above -- replace it
    > with Quality if desired) has evolved us to the point where most all our
    > experience and most all our intellect is in S/O form, and so that is the
    > form for our creativity.

    We are on the very same track. Quality-cum-intelligence has evolved
    to the stage where we perceive reality as divided in S/O form. I have
    constantly been pointing to the mix-up of the intellectual level and
    "intelligence" (which is some somish term for the dynamic part of

    > We can -- thanks to thinkers like Pirsig,
    > Barfield, Coleridge and others -- figure out that this S/O form is not
    > basic, but it takes something more than our S/O thinking to move beyond
    > it.

    Pirsig aside, how can idealists "move beyond" the S/O form?

    > What SOM says is that the concepts and ideas derive -- are
    > abstractions -- from what the concepts and ideas are about. What I
    > (following Barfield following Coleridge following...Plato, with
    > modifications) am suggesting is that some rarified version of those
    > concepts and ideas creates the experience in the first place.

    Maybe you explain it here (I also see things from your exchange with
    Paul - will return to it) but there was another post from you that made
    me cock my ears, namely where you suggest a three-level MOQ, the
    upper tier "semiotic". As you may remember I once tried hard to
    explain the MOQ static levels through William Peirce's "Semiosis"
    idea. I did not see the need for collapsing anything, but still believe
    the sign idea may be useful for removing the mind-connotation from
    intellect. Is it Peirce you have in mind?


    MOQ.ORG -
    Mail Archives:
    Aug '98 - Oct '02 -
    Nov '02 Onward -
    MD Queries -

    To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Aug 13 2003 - 08:43:22 BST